Should we kill healthy people for their organs?

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

The need of the many outweigh the needs of the few

This is basically the same principal as one of my topics. Its never an easy decision


http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/94884-Saving-or-sacrificing

ferreire580 wrote: The need of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Yet we aren't the most rationale beings....

Easier said than done.

ferreire580 wrote: This is basically the same principal as one of my topics. Its never an easy decision


http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions/94884-Saving-or-sacrificing

i too have had this thought, more than once. even blogged about it. and no, its never easy. there are always variables, ya know?

oddly enough, we are watching an episode of adventure time where finn and jake get one wish from some guy, but of course there are weird unforseen side effects each time.

kemo wrote:

ferreire580 wrote: The need of the many outweigh the needs of the few

Yet we aren't the most rationale beings....

Easier said than done.

True but we do have our moments of logic. We can see the situation and know what the right thing to do is. Or what the lesser evil is, since this kind of thing never has a "right" answer. But like desolous said, there are always variables. Say the donor of these organs is a serial killer. Or one of the people you have to shoot is a rapist. In that case the decision is easier. But also say everyone in the situation is a good person with families and important jobs that help better mankind. It's never as clear cut as one saves many. I think the decision should be based on the variables at hand. I'm still struggling with an answer and probably always will be. My one thing to fall back on is that many are more important then few.

Hi, I'm new here and saw this interesting topic so I just decided to pitch in my two cents.

The question is not really whether to kill Bill or not; it's more of a question whether or not he's willing to sacrifice his life to save others. No one should force against one's own will. If Bill has the will to live, no one has the right to kill him. If he has a valid reason to be euthanized so he can save others, then people should respect that will.

The problem comes when people twist and manipulate that logic and start killing people to "save other people" against the victim's will.

As a counterpoint, let me ask this: How can you be certain that since Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones, he will not one day in the future help save millions of people? Maybe he won the lottery and donated the money to medical research and ended up discovering a cure for cancer. Maybe he's an engineer who invented the seat-belt or the airbag? I'm sure that counts more than just five lives he can save today, don't you think?

One should not take life for granted, it's not something that you can easily place a value on and decide it's "worthy" to be exchanged.

What if one of the five people he end up saving is a serial killer? Howe does that work?

Does Bill volunteer? If not, does Bill own guns? Does Bill have other "friends" who also have guns? In the other scenereos, the reader is forced into the situations, where Bill was not. Lets see you spout off "the needs of the many" while telling your neighbors one of them has to die because every member of your family requires an organ transplant, get back to me on how that turns out...

Zenchi wrote: Does Bill volunteer? If not, does Bill own guns? Does Bill have other "friends" who also have guns? In the other scenereos, the reader is forced into the situations, where Bill was not. Lets see you spout off "the needs of the many" while telling your neighbors one of them has to die because every member of your family requires an organ transplant, get back to me on how that turns out...

If it was life for life I wouldn't ask for anything. Even for a family member. And I would gladly give my own life for many more. And I would hope people would do the same, though I know they wouldn't.

Like I said too, it's not an easy choice at all. I don't want to be in that situation and I hope nobody ever does. But I would save as many people as I could. Like killing as many terrorists as possible because they may kill more. How would things have worked out if the leaders of Al-queda had been killed and 9-11 never happened. Tell me you wouldn't stop that if you had the chance. Osama bin Laden was a life like any other, but he was a terrible person and his death may have saved thousands. Again few for many.